The issue is that both sides try and create the argument into something it is not. Most of the Christian's fighting evolution would agree it isn't a salvation issue if you ask. Most Christians and non-Christians fighting young earth creationism try and find "tricky" ways to let the Bible support or hint at their beliefs.

I say let's get past that unintelligent BS trying to find tricky ways to leave an open Biblically and realize that the author had no other intent to state what he thought was the facts based on what God told him to write down. It doesn't mean God's intention what such, but to say it was anything other means you have to acknowledge a deviation from the facts on the table to personal belief.

This is DANGEROUS and only should be done when HARD facts arise that give reason to adjust. In this case we have a significant amount of evidence that the facts of creation were different than the story. That hints at a definite possibility that God's intentions were allegory.

Why this is dangerous is that you need really strong facts and reasons to pull something like this off. To flippantly go, well I just believe "X" so I'm going to assume God didn't mean that and the human messed it up is absolutely lazy logic. We must assume a creator of the universe capable of making something from nothing is capable of making sure the right words get written down if he makes the effort to do so. On things regarding NON-salvation issues it really is no big deal. When we start talking about salvation issues, this is where no longer can we use this technique as that would mean a God who is in control of everything gave us false information because he picked the wrong person. That simply makes no sense that a God who one believes has good intentions for all would actually hurt everyone more by giving us false information on salvation. That is just absolutely lazy logic to think that IMO.

What is really dangerous and lazy is to "believe" in something that clouds everything you look at. You always start from an assumptive beginning and fight alternatives from an emotional, rather than logical and open, standpoint.

The Bible was taken as gospel, hard facts have risen over the last 2,000 years that absolutely (no questions asked) prove that creationism didn't happen as stipulated in the Bible. That said, now it is dangerous and lazy not to question every single line of the Bible and the overall premise of the Bible itself. It is even more dangerous and lazy to then pull a switch and bait and now claim God's intentions were allegory, a misdirection tatic or something an illusionist uses to trick the audience. Once they hard facts arise, it is time to start from scratch and reevaluate from the first line of the Bible and question it from a neutral stance (which very few seem to be able to do and most are too afraid to attempt).

Show me real proof that God does indeed exist and I'll take a hard look at it and be happy to change my position. Show believers hard proof that the Bible is wrong and they will never change their position, but simply change their interpretation to fit their belief. Now I ask you, which approach is both lazy and dangerous.

The issue is that both sides try and create the argument into something it is not. Most of the Christian's fighting evolution would agree it isn't a salvation issue if you ask. Most Christians and non-Christians fighting young earth creationism try and find "tricky" ways to let the Bible support or hint at their beliefs.

I say let's get past that unintelligent BS trying to find tricky ways to leave an open Biblically and realize that the author had no other intent to state what he thought was the facts based on what God told him to write down. It doesn't mean God's intention what such, but to say it was anything other means you have to acknowledge a deviation from the facts on the table to personal belief.

This is DANGEROUS and only should be done when HARD facts arise that give reason to adjust. In this case we have a significant amount of evidence that the facts of creation were different than the story. That hints at a definite possibility that God's intentions were allegory.

Why this is dangerous is that you need really strong facts and reasons to pull something like this off. To flippantly go, well I just believe "X" so I'm going to assume God didn't mean that and the human messed it up is absolutely lazy logic. We must assume a creator of the universe capable of making something from nothing is capable of making sure the right words get written down if he makes the effort to do so. On things regarding NON-salvation issues it really is no big deal. When we start talking about salvation issues, this is where no longer can we use this technique as that would mean a God who is in control of everything gave us false information because he picked the wrong person. That simply makes no sense that a God who one believes has good intentions for all would actually hurt everyone more by giving us false information on salvation. That is just absolutely lazy logic to think that IMO.

I don't believe that a "human messed it up." I do, however, suggest that perhaps whatever happened was limited by language and personal experience in some way. There may not have been words to describe it. The explanation given could quite possibly be the best one to be had; it could be the best way to describe it, but still not how you and I would describe it if we were eyewitnesses ourselves.And the way WE describe it might not be the same way that TheRealWags or WarEr might describe it.... None of us lying about what we saw, of course we will truly believe what we're writing down, but ask 100 people about one eye-witness event and you'll get 99 different answers. I really do like the way this discussion is going. I like that both yourself and WarEr aren't as closed-minded as I previously thought. Kudos and amen.

_________________"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather." -Bill Hicks

August 12th, 2011, 11:08 am

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Re: Questions about the Bible, Jesus and Christianity.

Pablo wrote:

What is really dangerous and lazy is to "believe" in something that clouds everything you look at. You always start from an assumptive beginning and fight alternatives from an emotional, rather than logical and open, standpoint.

The Bible was taken as gospel, hard facts have risen over the last 2,000 years that absolutely (no questions asked) prove that creationism didn't happen as stipulated in the Bible. That said, now it is dangerous and lazy not to question every single line of the Bible and the overall premise of the Bible itself. It is even more dangerous and lazy to then pull a switch and bait and now claim God's intentions were allegory, a misdirection tatic or something an illusionist uses to trick the audience. Once they hard facts arise, it is time to start from scratch and reevaluate from the first line of the Bible and question it from a neutral stance (which very few seem to be able to do and most are too afraid to attempt).

Show me real proof that God does indeed exist and I'll take a hard look at it and be happy to change my position. Show believers hard proof that the Bible is wrong and they will never change their position, but simply change their interpretation to fit their belief. Now I ask you, which approach is both lazy and dangerous.

Look, your premise of your post is that if ones looks hard at the Bible, then logically they can't find it true. That is complete crap. All your objections to date have zero meat behind them on a logical or factual standpoint. Point is, we are talking about belief. If you DON'T believe the Bible is God's word, then simply don't. Don't come here thinking that it is because we didn't really look at the Bible hard enough or think about it logically. That is insulting.

You want proof to believe, then keep looking. The claim isn't that I can walk you in front of God and introduce you two, so don't set some high and mighty standards above the claim being made. It's insulting to here people go "prove it" when we aren't claiming we can.

You REALLY miss the boat on this whole thing by creating this false requirements. If you simply don't believe, then don't... we're not telling you that you are missing proof to believe. The proof you say you seek doesn't exist and no one here claims to have it... why keep insulting us by asking for it?

To be clear, I'm not trying to dis-prove Christianity. I'm actually opening a window and bridging a gap to HELP Christianity reach out to the doubting Thomases, like myself, to help explain a big part of why the story is so unbelievable in the face of modern science.This is not your typical "mineral bashing Christianity" discussion. If the Church were a little more savvy, they could use discussions like these to embrace people who have trouble with the origins of man and the Bible. Nothing I've said has attacked anyone else's beliefs and hopefully we can continue this respect level.Just searching for answers that may coincide and work in conjunction with the Bible that many closed-minded pop-Christians have dismissed without question, which is a HUGE flaw in my mind and the reason for so many "backsliders."

_________________"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather." -Bill Hicks

August 12th, 2011, 11:27 am

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9898Location: Dallas

Re: Questions about the Bible, Jesus and Christianity.

steensn wrote:

Pablo wrote:

What is really dangerous and lazy is to "believe" in something that clouds everything you look at. You always start from an assumptive beginning and fight alternatives from an emotional, rather than logical and open, standpoint.

The Bible was taken as gospel, hard facts have risen over the last 2,000 years that absolutely (no questions asked) prove that creationism didn't happen as stipulated in the Bible. That said, now it is dangerous and lazy not to question every single line of the Bible and the overall premise of the Bible itself. It is even more dangerous and lazy to then pull a switch and bait and now claim God's intentions were allegory, a misdirection tatic or something an illusionist uses to trick the audience. Once they hard facts arise, it is time to start from scratch and reevaluate from the first line of the Bible and question it from a neutral stance (which very few seem to be able to do and most are too afraid to attempt).

Show me real proof that God does indeed exist and I'll take a hard look at it and be happy to change my position. Show believers hard proof that the Bible is wrong and they will never change their position, but simply change their interpretation to fit their belief. Now I ask you, which approach is both lazy and dangerous.

Look, your premise of your post is that if ones looks hard at the Bible, then logically they can't find it true. That is complete crap. All your objections to date have zero meat behind them on a logical or factual standpoint. Point is, we are talking about belief. If you DON'T believe the Bible is God's word, then simply don't. Don't come here thinking that it is because we didn't really look at the Bible hard enough or think about it logically. That is insulting.

You want proof to believe, then keep looking. The claim isn't that I can walk you in front of God and introduce you two, so don't set some high and mighty standards above the claim being made. It's insulting to here people go "prove it" when we aren't claiming we can.

You REALLY miss the boat on this whole thing by creating this false requirements. If you simply don't believe, then don't... we're not telling you that you are missing proof to believe. The proof you say you seek doesn't exist and no one here claims to have it... why keep insulting us by asking for it?

I'm not asking for proof here, I'm saying I'm open to it. I'm not saying not to believe, that is your perogative. You threw out the terms "dangerous and lazy", I simply reversed the situation - sorry if that is insulting.

What false requirements am I creating? Questioning something that has been proven false by "hard fact" (again your term) isn't a false requirement at all, I'm simply asking you to take a fresh look at something that has already been proven to have significant flaws. Your reaction to this is, to reiterate, close your eyes and not examine something with flaws from a neutral perspective.

If you are not intellectually honest enought, or so blinded by faith, to do this - well again you can insert your terms to see the truth behind this lack of effort. Instead, you misdirect as always with a "false requirement" claim rather than addressing the facts and the book in question. It is your perogative however and how you choose to look at things, that is cool with me if you can approach things that way.

To insist that after I have taken a fresh look at something and changing my mind that I need to take a look at everything again and be willing to be open is insulting. After I have proven that I have done that, look back a few years on here and you will see me defending creationism when I first came on board (or it was the other Lions board, can't remember when that convo happened and when I followed Sly over). I have proven I am willing to take real solid data and facts and modify my beliefs to fit. I cannot have come to that without being willing to come from a neutral position.

It doesn't mean though that I have to make up reasons to doubt and recheck every little thing. My understanding of the Bible and the data presented that persuaded me to take a different stance did not at all change the TRUTH coming from the stories. The salvation impact is that we are still BORN in sin, whether the fall in the Garden was literal or not. Again, as you said, it is my prerogative to believe or not like it is yours. But when you continually say "prove to me God exist" like we are claiming that misses the boat and insults the claims made.

It simply is not pertinent to the conversation... it is like having that guy who brings up random stuff that "seems" relevant but really is only related bu topic only.

Again, this goes to my point that a relational God can not be explained by logical proof. Love is not something you can see, or hear, or taste, but you can feel it, experience it, and have it. Pablo in a question I asked you, you tried to say that the chemical release of endorphins and so on in the brain are the proof of love. Or something to that affect, it's been a while and I've slept since then. However, the bodies reactions or chemical reactions are not proof to its existence that is a cause an affect scenario. Something causes me to be happy so my body releases the appropriate chemicals, either way it's not proof of love.

Another point: If I give love to my daughter because she' s my daughter, where is the exchange of chemicals from my brain to hers?

I strongly believe that it is up to Christians to get involved in the lives of people in their spheres of influence. Get involved, form relationships, and be a living breathing example of God to them, and when life deals the blows, Christians are there to help, along with all the other friends that they might have. But it's my experience that Christians are the ones who bring true hope.

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

August 12th, 2011, 12:19 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9898Location: Dallas

Re: Questions about the Bible, Jesus and Christianity.

steensn wrote:

To insist that after I have taken a fresh look at something and changing my mind that I need to take a look at everything again and be willing to be open is insulting. After I have proven that I have done that, look back a few years on here and you will see me defending creationism when I first came on board (or it was the other Lions board, can't remember when that convo happened and when I followed Sly over). I have proven I am willing to take real solid data and facts and modify my beliefs to fit. I cannot have come to that without being willing to come from a neutral position.

It doesn't mean though that I have to make up reasons to doubt and recheck every little thing. My understanding of the Bible and the data presented that persuaded me to take a different stance did not at all change the TRUTH coming from the stories. The salvation impact is that we are still BORN in sin, whether the fall in the Garden was literal or not. Again, as you said, it is my prerogative to believe or not like it is yours. But when you continually say "prove to me God exist" like we are claiming that misses the boat and insults the claims made.

It simply is not pertinent to the conversation... it is like having that guy who brings up random stuff that "seems" relevant but really is only related bu topic only.

For the second time, I dind't say "prove to me God exist" (at least recently), so lets drop that as off topic and irrelevant to this discussion (and a misdirection once again). Sorry you find it insulting to have to look at something fresh when new data or proof exist. I'm glad society doesn't tend to work that way. Imagine all those wrongly convicted prisoners never being let out of prision despite new DNA evidence that proves there conviction was wrong initially. I'm glad we then take a fresh look at all the evidence and don't find it insulting.

Also, please note that I am speaking in generalities, not you specific set of beleifs. And if you are able to change your beliefs, more power to you as you can honestly then say the "truth" doesn't exist since it is constantly evolving for you rather than a constant. You, like myself, are able to see the flaws in beliefs and adjust accordingly (not the case for most and again I'm speaking in generalities).

Funny how you capitalized, BORN in sin. This is another Christian concept I don't accept. Neither one of my children were born in sin - in fact they were as innocent as can be in birth. They have since learned sin - your own Bible IMO points this out.

Little children are innocent because they do not know the difference between good and evil. Isa. 7:15-16

In sacrificing babies to idols, they shed innocent blood. If babies inherit Adam's sin, they would not be innocent. Jeremiah 19:4-5; Psalm 106:37-38

furthermore

Each individual becomes a sinner when he breaks God's law. 1 John 3:4

tells me we aren't born into sin as does

One becomes guilty of sin when he responds to temptation. James 1:13-14

So that line confuses me, perhaps you can educate me on what you mean by that line (thanks in advance).

For the second time, I dind't say "prove to me God exist" (at least recently), so lets drop that as off topic and irrelevant to this discussion (and a misdirection once again).

Fair enough, I can ignore past discussions if you want to move past that.

Pablo wrote:

Sorry you find it insulting to have to look at something fresh when new data or proof exist.

No, I am insulted when it is said in generality and not in specifics. When it is said in generality it muddies the water and is used to lay claim that a modification of belief of Genesis 1 suddenly means any conjecture to anything else is legitimized. Suddenly we have to question Jesus and the NT and X and Y. That is the insulting part because it is illogical and a clearly defined logical fallacy.

Pablo wrote:

I'm glad society doesn't tend to work that way. Imagine all those wrongly convicted prisoners never being let out of prison despite new DNA evidence that proves there conviction was wrong initially. I'm glad we then take a fresh look at all the evidence and don't find it insulting.

And to say Christianity hasn't done that is insulting and ignoring the basis for the NT, Jews becoming Christians to follow Jesus as the Messiah and teach the next stage in God's plan.

Pablo wrote:

Also, please note that I am speaking in generalities, not you specific set of beliefs. And if you are able to change your beliefs, more power to you as you can honestly then say the "truth" doesn't exist since it is constantly evolving for you rather than a constant. You, like myself, are able to see the flaws in beliefs and adjust accordingly (not the case for most and again I'm speaking in generalities).

Another logical fallacy, nothing about me changing my beliefs effects what truth is. My beliefs are an effort to conform to whatever truth is out there. There must be and is one absolute truth. My perception of what that is has NO impact on that, my personal beliefs are not that important, neither are yours, and neither are the sum of the human race put together. Truth is truth, our beliefs are an attempt to name the specifics of what that truth is. Truth exist, by beliefs are an attempt to understand that truth.

Maybe that is what you meant, but calling it "truth" comlpicates the meanings a bit.

Pablo wrote:

Funny how you capitalized, BORN in sin. This is another Christian concept I don't accept. Neither one of my children were born in sin - in fact they were as innocent as can be in birth. They have since learned sin - your own Bible IMO points this out.

Little children are innocent because they do not know the difference between good and evil. Isa. 7:15-16

In sacrificing babies to idols, they shed innocent blood. If babies inherit Adam's sin, they would not be innocent. Jeremiah 19:4-5; Psalm 106:37-38

furthermore

Each individual becomes a sinner when he breaks God's law. 1 John 3:4

tells me we aren't born into sin as does

One becomes guilty of sin when he responds to temptation. James 1:13-14

So that line confuses me, perhaps you can educate me on what you mean by that line (thanks in advance).

Well... join the rest of Christians then Haha. This is a thing that even the Christians on this born would argue about so I think it is better that we don't go down this road. I am a Calvinist... so I believe in the doctrine of total depravity and original sin. I am going to guess that there are Christians on this board that believe the opposite. In either case, this specific belief is a non-salvation issue as once you are old enough to even consider this you clearly have reached the point where you have sinned and done got yourself in the situation of needing Jesus.

I'd love to go deeper, but as this is not a salvation issue, I overstepped my intent by throwing out there some deeper topics not relevant to the discussion.

So much for it meaning" in a Beginning" Try again to justify your rejection of GOD.

If I were to assign a meaning to your made up word, it would be, " Full of poop !"

The first word in the original Hebrew is בְּרֵאשִׁית, transliterated as Bereishit, B'reishit, or Breishis. In Judaism it begins the Torah portion (parshah) Bereishit, which ends at Genesis 5:31. In Hebrew, בְּרֵאשִׁית translates literally as "At/in [a] head [of]," implying "in [a] beginning." The three middle letters of the Hebrew alphabet within the word בְּרֵאשִׁית, Bereishit, are ר, א, and ש, which are pronounced as reish when part of the word, but can also be read as rosh when read without the vowels. Rosh is the word for "head" as spelled and pronounced in Hebrew (as in Rosh Hashanah, ראש השנה, ro'sh hash-shānāh, "the head (beginning) [of] the year".)

The issue is that both sides try and create the argument into something it is not. Most of the Christian's fighting evolution would agree it isn't a salvation issue if you ask. Most Christians and non-Christians fighting young earth creationism try and find "tricky" ways to let the Bible support or hint at their beliefs.

I say let's get past that unintelligent BS trying to find tricky ways to leave an open Biblically and realize that the author had no other intent to state what he thought was the facts based on what God told him to write down. It doesn't mean God's intention what such, but to say it was anything other means you have to acknowledge a deviation from the facts on the table to personal belief.

This is DANGEROUS and only should be done when HARD facts arise that give reason to adjust. In this case we have a significant amount of evidence that the facts of creation were different than the story. That hints at a definite possibility that God's intentions were allegory.

Why this is dangerous is that you need really strong facts and reasons to pull something like this off. To flippantly go, well I just believe "X" so I'm going to assume God didn't mean that and the human messed it up is absolutely lazy logic. We must assume a creator of the universe capable of making something from nothing is capable of making sure the right words get written down if he makes the effort to do so. On things regarding NON-salvation issues it really is no big deal. When we start talking about salvation issues, this is where no longer can we use this technique as that would mean a God who is in control of everything gave us false information because he picked the wrong person. That simply makes no sense that a God who one believes has good intentions for all would actually hurt everyone more by giving us false information on salvation. That is just absolutely lazy logic to think that IMO.

What is really dangerous and lazy is to "believe" in something that clouds everything you look at. You always start from an assumptive beginning and fight alternatives from an emotional, rather than logical and open, standpoint.

The Bible was taken as gospel, hard facts have risen over the last 2,000 years that absolutely (no questions asked) prove that creationism didn't happen as stipulated in the Bible. That said, now it is dangerous and lazy not to question every single line of the Bible and the overall premise of the Bible itself. It is even more dangerous and lazy to then pull a switch and bait and now claim God's intentions were allegory, a misdirection tatic or something an illusionist uses to trick the audience. Once they hard facts arise, it is time to start from scratch and reevaluate from the first line of the Bible and question it from a neutral stance (which very few seem to be able to do and most are too afraid to attempt).

Show me real proof that God does indeed exist and I'll take a hard look at it and be happy to change my position. Show believers hard proof that the Bible is wrong and they will never change their position, but simply change their interpretation to fit their belief. Now I ask you, which approach is both lazy and dangerous.

Pablo,

As long as you are alive, you will never get your hard proof of GOD's existence. That's where faith comes in. Once you get your hard proof of GOD's existence, it will be too late because you will be standing naked before your creator to give account for your lifetime of actions, intentions, deeds, misdeeds, even every single thought you ever had.

To be clear, I'm not trying to dis-prove Christianity. I'm actually opening a window and bridging a gap to HELP Christianity reach out to the doubting Thomases, like myself, to help explain a big part of why the story is so unbelievable in the face of modern science.This is not your typical "mineral bashing Christianity" discussion. If the Church were a little more savvy, they could use discussions like these to embrace people who have trouble with the origins of man and the Bible. Nothing I've said has attacked anyone else's beliefs and hopefully we can continue this respect level.Just searching for answers that may coincide and work in conjunction with the Bible that many closed-minded pop-Christians have dismissed without question, which is a HUGE flaw in my mind and the reason for so many "backsliders."

You are relying on science. Even modern science gets disproved on a daily basis in one area or another. For instance: Science, for the longest time held that the universe was infinite and continuously expanding.

Well, guess what? Our universe may just be a blip in the extra cosmic background of a Multi verse.

Funny thing. When I was in 7th grade, one of my teachers challenged each of us to write a report about any topic we wanted. But, the report should be about a subject that "pushed the boundaries of our imagination".

My report was on the MEGAVERSE.

I theorized that just as there are multiple solar systems in each Galaxy. And multiple Galaxies in a universe, that there would be multiple universes in a much larger MEGAVERSE.

Well, science has caught up and that theory is now being widely accepted.

My point is. That science is disproved far more often than it is proven. And for every 1 thing that science disproves about the Bible, there are several things that it proves about the Bible. Especially, in regard to historical record.

I searched for bereshiyt in an online Try again to justify your rejection of GOD.

If I were to assign a meaning to your made up word, it would be, " Full of poop !"

Can we at least try to be civil in this discussion? IMO that is a totally uncalled for statement and if this continues I will have no problem locking this and any other 'religious' thread.

How was I being uncivil? The word does not exist. The root may exist. But, the word does not. ERGO, it is MADE UP.

If its not clear to you where you were being pretentious / snotty / uncivil, then I don't really know what to say. Perhaps someone else can point it out to him?

Your right. I guess I should have just told him to kill himself and no-one would have called me out on it.

Why?Why are you being the most offensive person in the thread, yet you claim to be so righteous?Why did you have to go there?See you in hell.

If there be a god, it's things like that that would bring you farther away from him. I'm no Christian, but I know right from wrong. Joking about suicide isn't Christian, it's not righteous, and you're a terrible person. Why bring that up again? You make absolutely no sense to me. You know plenty about the word, it seems, except how to live it.

_________________"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather." -Bill Hicks